ADVERTISEMENT

Trey/Danny--- Net Neutrality Repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.
TB/DW.... with the FCCs ruling and repeal of net neutrality I have an idea....

You guys can charge HawgWild79 per post and retire early. Like really early.... by Spring practice at the worst.
Explain all this garb about the Net Neutrality. I haven't paid any attention it it.
 
Net Nuetrality rules were put in place to keep the Internet “fair” in theory.

The rules limited ISP providers from slowing down or speeding up the internet when it suited them.

For instance, if NBC has a streaming service and doesn’t want to compete with Netflix, they could strike up a deal with Comcast where Comcast would slow Netflix down and/or speed NBC’s service up. All in all, the basic f**ckery you’ve come to expect from big corporations.

The bottom line is, it’s potentially very detrimental to the public, very beneficial to the telecom industry, the public is overwhelmingly in support of Net Nuetrality regulations, the telecom industry is not and gives politicians big $$$, therefore, the end of Net Nuetrality regulations.

Your government at work.
 
Basically you'll pay more money while the fat cats make even more. Anyone who uses the internet should be furious about it's repeal.

This is bad - i mean imagine paying 14.99 just to use twitter and more money for Youtube and other social media

also think about paying 99 cents for each google search

This is not a problem for whatever party people support
 
Net Nuetrality rules were put in place to keep the Internet “fair” in theory.

The rules limited ISP providers from slowing down or speeding up the internet when it suited them.

For instance, if NBC has a streaming service and doesn’t want to compete with Netflix, they could strike up a deal with Comcast where Comcast would slow Netflix down and/or speed NBC’s service up. All in all, the basic f**ckery you’ve come to expect from big corporations.

The bottom line is, it’s potentially very detrimental to the public, very beneficial to the telecom industry, the public is overwhelmingly in support of Net Nuetrality regulations, the telecom industry is not and gives politicians big $$$, therefore, the end of Net Nuetrality regulations.

Your government at work.
Excellent description!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ Hawg
Just to play devil's advocate -- today's decision doesn't really "end" Net Neutrality, but based on my understanding shifts the burden of enforcement from the FCC to the FTC, who had been doing it previously. While the negative results of losing net neutrality are very real and should be avoided at all costs, I think the frenzy over that has overshadowed the actual action being taken today.

Here's a WSJ op-ed I found interesting:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-neutrality-1513124905
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawginJ and HogTime
I get the basics, but when is this supposed to begin?
I don’t have cable but have internet thru Comcast. So I assume I won’t be able to stream shit when this goes into effect.
 
Here it is a simple as possible.

Net-neutrality keeps the internet companies from becoming like Cable TV and charging you extra to access Netflix, Sling, or Hawgsports. Without Net Neutrality, they could block services that compete with them, thrttle them down speed-wise, or tack-on service charges for Netflix, sling, or competitors. So, if you don't want your internet to turn into cable TV, you want net-neutrality.

There is a reason cable companies bought-up internet service providers and they only know one business model. Without net neutrality, get ready for a crap-load of "premium" charges. They are not opposing net-neutrality because they are good-hearted. They are opposing it because it interferes with profit motive.
 
Just to play devil's advocate -- today's decision doesn't really "end" Net Neutrality, but based on my understanding shifts the burden of enforcement from the FCC to the FTC, who had been doing it previously. While the negative results of losing net neutrality are very real and should be avoided at all costs, I think the frenzy over that has overshadowed the actual action being taken today.

Here's a WSJ op-ed I found interesting:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/everybody-calm-down-about-net-neutrality-1513124905

Today's decision opens a door that had previously been closed. It's a potentially dangerous first step.
 
y6GwjAz.gif
 
Yep.

So every ISP can approach your ISP and ask for $$$ or face being blocked, charging customers for "premium access", or throttle-down your speed for that site.

So, if your ISP does not like yahoo, good luck getting to hawgsports or your fantasy football.

Yeah, I'm furious about it. Already called my congressmen.
 
This is bad - i mean imagine paying 14.99 just to use twitter and more money for Youtube and other social media

also think about paying 99 cents for each google search

This is not a problem for whatever party people support

What really gets me is the fact that the FCC knows people didn't want it to be repealed - Democrats or Republicans - yet they basically just said we don't give a damn, we're repealing it anyway. When basically 80% of the population is against something but they go ahead and pass it so the rich can get richer something is bad wrong.
 
This is bad - i mean imagine paying 14.99 just to use twitter and more money for Youtube and other social media

also think about paying 99 cents for each google search

This is not a problem for whatever party people support


Sounds like I got in at the right time at Encyclopedia Britannica!! .99 per search, buy my outdated, non-interactive books!!!
 
Some of the earlier descriptions are spot on. Another way of looking at Net neutrality is think of the internet as a utility like electricity. Net neutrality means a free and open internet....an analogy would be electricity. If you pay your electric bill (internet service), you flip a light switch, a light comes on (you pay your internet bill you get internet at whatever speed you choose); but your refrigerator, your tv, hair dryer, etc all turn on simply by paying this one electric bill (you have access to every website). Doing away with net neutrality would be like the electric company saying, "okay, you pay us $40 per month just to have electricity at your house, if you want your fridge to run, it's an extra $5.99, hair dryer is $0.49, TV is an extra $7.99...so on and so forth. If you want internet, you pay a fee. If you want to run netflix, you pay netflix $10.99/month, but to have internet ran for the service at that streaming speed, you'll have to pay extra. Different ISPs will have different "packages" I would imagine like Dish or DirectTV have "basic packages" and anything extra will be additional money. So, if you want e-mail or access to search engines, that's a certain amount each month. If you want to stream video from Youtube, that's extra charge, if you want access to online banking/online news/hawgsports it's going to be extra money.

Basically, the corporations owners/CEOs (insert any other greedy mother-f*cker here), want to make more, while providing fewer services for one monthly price. The big cable companies have been throwing money at politicians to have this done, but now that the bought and paid for congresspeople who have taken the bulk of the money are making decisions/laws/making appointments (FCC Chair, etc), the cable companies have their chance to make this happen....and we are going to be the ones who have to pay for it.

I know this isn't the best analogy...but it's the easiest way I can explain it.

Right now if you pay your water bill, you get water to all your sinks, fridge, dish washer, washing machine. Doing away with net neutrality would be like the water company charging you $30/month just to have "access" to water at your house, then charging additional money for each appliance ran. It's BS.

I know a lot of politicians form all parties accept money/bribes for certain laws to be made/passed; but right now there are a LOT of people in the pockets of billionaire/corporation owners in power who want more handouts from those billionaires...so they are passing tax breaks for them, chipping away at net neutrality, chipping away at healthcare, refusing to raise minimum wage to a living wage while charging more and more for basic needs/goods, etc...all so a handful of people can have more houses, private jets, yachts, and private club memberships while the rest of us are left paying for it all.

We are beginning to lose our democracy, we are turning into a kleptocracy.

For those of you who don't know dictionary.com:

"kleptocracy

[klep-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural kleptocracies.
1.
a government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal; rule by a thief or thieves."



Okay. I'm done. Getting too worked up.
 
If Trump was smart he’d come out and issue an edict for net neutrality as an executive order. He’d get overwhelming support even from people like me who think he’s a sweaty ball sack. I don’t know the legality of that, but he should do something within his power to do.
Legality? Sure didn't stop the former President from doing such things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chauvinist Pig
I think everyone is freaking out over nothing.

In 2014, did you have google going, “we request you to enter $2.50 before getting your search.”
What about Facebook? They started in 2005...Did not having net neutrality limit them.

People are too short sided.
 
I think everyone is freaking out over nothing.

In 2014, did you have google going, “we request you to enter $2.50 before getting your search.”
What about Facebook? They started in 2005...Did not having net neutrality limit them.

People are too short sided.


None of my sides are short. Net neutrality was put in place because the isp’s were ABOUT to start doing just that. It was a response to something that was very close to happening. To assume it won’t happen now is laughable. That’s why they wanted the rules repealed and fought so hard to get it done.
 
None of my sides are short. Net neutrality was put in place because the isp’s were ABOUT to start doing just that. It was a response to something that was very close to happening. To assume it won’t happen now is laughable. That’s why they wanted the rules repealed and fought so hard to get it done.
First off...bravo on catching my grammar/spelling gaff...I laughed.

My mind was bottled at how much of a pre madonna I was...

Secondly...it is funny to hear someone mock another due to assuming something won't happen...when the reason you say things were put in place was because the assumption they were about to be done.

So my assumptions aren't allowed...but yours are?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgrubb
Some of the earlier descriptions are spot on. Another way of looking at Net neutrality is think of the internet as a utility like electricity. Net neutrality means a free and open internet....an analogy would be electricity. If you pay your electric bill (internet service), you flip a light switch, a light comes on (you pay your internet bill you get internet at whatever speed you choose); but your refrigerator, your tv, hair dryer, etc all turn on simply by paying this one electric bill (you have access to every website). Doing away with net neutrality would be like the electric company saying, "okay, you pay us $40 per month just to have electricity at your house, if you want your fridge to run, it's an extra $5.99, hair dryer is $0.49, TV is an extra $7.99...so on and so forth. If you want internet, you pay a fee. If you want to run netflix, you pay netflix $10.99/month, but to have internet ran for the service at that streaming speed, you'll have to pay extra. Different ISPs will have different "packages" I would imagine like Dish or DirectTV have "basic packages" and anything extra will be additional money. So, if you want e-mail or access to search engines, that's a certain amount each month. If you want to stream video from Youtube, that's extra charge, if you want access to online banking/online news/hawgsports it's going to be extra money.

Basically, the corporations owners/CEOs (insert any other greedy mother-f*cker here), want to make more, while providing fewer services for one monthly price. The big cable companies have been throwing money at politicians to have this done, but now that the bought and paid for congresspeople who have taken the bulk of the money are making decisions/laws/making appointments (FCC Chair, etc), the cable companies have their chance to make this happen....and we are going to be the ones who have to pay for it.

I know this isn't the best analogy...but it's the easiest way I can explain it.

Right now if you pay your water bill, you get water to all your sinks, fridge, dish washer, washing machine. Doing away with net neutrality would be like the water company charging you $30/month just to have "access" to water at your house, then charging additional money for each appliance ran. It's BS.

I know a lot of politicians form all parties accept money/bribes for certain laws to be made/passed; but right now there are a LOT of people in the pockets of billionaire/corporation owners in power who want more handouts from those billionaires...so they are passing tax breaks for them, chipping away at net neutrality, chipping away at healthcare, refusing to raise minimum wage to a living wage while charging more and more for basic needs/goods, etc...all so a handful of people can have more houses, private jets, yachts, and private club memberships while the rest of us are left paying for it all.

We are beginning to lose our democracy, we are turning into a kleptocracy.

For those of you who don't know dictionary.com:

"kleptocracy

[klep-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural kleptocracies.
1.
a government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal; rule by a thief or thieves."



Okay. I'm done. Getting too worked up.
Take your blood pressure meds Bernie you are going to have a stroke. I'm surprised you didn't say "the top 1% of 1%" in any of that.

tenor.gif
 
I think everyone is freaking out over nothing.

In 2014, did you have google going, “we request you to enter $2.50 before getting your search.”
What about Facebook? They started in 2005...Did not having net neutrality limit them.

People are too short sided.

Actually... Prior to 2015, Comm companies DID throttle traffic (Comcast in 2007), and DID impose secret and arbitrary caps on data, as well as hidden fees (AT&T 2011-2014). The only reason these were put to an end is because Title II regulations ALREADY existed to an extent prior to 2015. Now they've repealed all of the protections that had been put in place.

So no, this isn't "freaking out over nothing."
 
Actually... Prior to 2015, Comm companies DID throttle traffic (Comcast in 2007), and DID impose secret and arbitrary caps on data, as well as hidden fees (AT&T 2011-2014). The only reason these were put to an end is because Title II regulations ALREADY existed to an extent prior to 2015. Now they've repealed all of the protections that had been put in place.

So no, this isn't "freaking out over nothing."
Ok...let's assume your information is accurate. I can't rebuke them.

Show me ONE instance that has changed in your daily life from 2014 to now that has been effected due to Net Neutrality. I don't want feelings here. I want data, facts, numbers.

For example: "I am so glad my cell phone bill is down because of Net Neutrality"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT